%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : ALG439-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% Model : x86_64 x86_64
% CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 2.10GHz
% Memory : 8046.5625MB
% OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% CPULimit : 300s
% WCLimit : 300s
% DateTime : Thu Sep 24 11:56:06 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Unsatisfiable 0.15s 5.57s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.15s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 4
% Number of leaves : 3
% Syntax : Number of clauses : 9 ( 4 unt; 2 nHn; 7 RR)
% Number of literals : 14 ( 13 equ; 7 neg)
% Maximal clause size : 2 ( 1 avg)
% Maximal term depth : 5 ( 2 avg)
% Number of predicates : 2 ( 0 usr; 1 prp; 0-2 aty)
% Number of functors : 8 ( 8 usr; 4 con; 0-3 aty)
% Number of variables : 4 ( 2 sgn)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cnf(cls_conjecture_0,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y
| v_c != v_y ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_0) ).
cnf(cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0,axiom,
X1 = c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),X2,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0) ).
cnf(cls_conjecture_1,negated_conjecture,
( v_c = v_y
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = v_y ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p',cls_conjecture_1) ).
cnf(c_0_3,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y
| v_c != v_y ),
inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[cls_conjecture_0]) ).
cnf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
( c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) != v_y
| v_c != v_y ),
c_0_3 ).
cnf(c_0_5,axiom,
X1 = c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(X1,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),X2,tc_Complex_Ocomplex),
cls_mpoly__base__conv_I2_J_0 ).
cnf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
( v_c = v_y
| c_Polynomial_Opoly(c_Polynomial_OpCons(v_c,c_HOL_Ozero__class_Ozero(tc_Polynomial_Opoly(tc_Complex_Ocomplex)),tc_Complex_Ocomplex),v_x,tc_Complex_Ocomplex) = v_y ),
cls_conjecture_1 ).
cnf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
v_c != v_y,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_4,c_0_5])]) ).
cnf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_6,c_0_5])]),c_0_7]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.02 % Problem : ALG439-1 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.1.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.11/5.39 % Computer : n003.cluster.edu
% 0.11/5.39 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.11/5.39 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.11/5.39 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.11/5.39 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.11/5.39 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.11/5.39 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 13:22:51 UTC 2026
% 0.11/5.39 % CPUTime :
% 0.11/5.39 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.15/5.44 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.15/5.44 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.15/5.57 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.15/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % new_bool_3 with pid 200305 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/5.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/5.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.57 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % new_bool_3 with pid 200310 completed with status 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.15/5.57 % Preprocessing class: FSLMSMSMSSSNFFN.
% 0.15/5.57 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting G-E--_207_C18_F1_AE_CS_SP_PI_PS_S2S with 1200s (4) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 600s (2) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.15/5.57 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.15/5.57 % Search class: FGHSM-FSLM32-MFFFFFNN
% 0.15/5.57 % Scheduled 12 strats onto 2 cores with 600 seconds (600 total)
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 55s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Starting new_bool_3 with 61s (1) cores
% 0.15/5.57 % Preprocessing time : 0.004 s
% 0.15/5.57 % Presaturation interreduction done
% 0.15/5.57
% 0.15/5.57 % Proof found!
% 0.15/5.57 % SZS status Unsatisfiable
% 0.15/5.57 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% See solution above
% 0.15/5.57 % Parsed axioms : 916
% 0.15/5.57 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 724
% 0.15/5.57 % Initial clauses : 192
% 0.15/5.57 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Initial clauses in saturation : 192
% 0.15/5.57 % Processed clauses : 27
% 0.15/5.57 % ...of these trivial : 1
% 0.15/5.57 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % ...remaining for further processing : 25
% 0.15/5.57 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Backward-subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Backward-rewritten : 3
% 0.15/5.57 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 2
% 0.15/5.57 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % NegExts : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Total rewrite steps : 5
% 0.15/5.57 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.15/5.57 % Current number of processed clauses : 22
% 0.15/5.57 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 19
% 0.15/5.57 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.15/5.57 % Non-unit-clauses : 2
% 0.15/5.57 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 167
% 0.15/5.57 % ...number of literals in the above : 420
% 0.15/5.57 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Current number of archived clauses : 3
% 0.15/5.57 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 1
% 0.15/5.57 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.15/5.57 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.15/5.57 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % BW rewrite match attempts : 2
% 0.15/5.57 % BW rewrite match successes : 2
% 0.15/5.57 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.15/5.57 % Termbank termtop insertions : 11959
% 0.15/5.57 % Search garbage collected termcells : 2672
% 0.15/5.57
% 0.15/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.57 % User time : 0.009 s
% 0.15/5.57 % System time : 0.005 s
% 0.15/5.57 % Total time : 0.014 s
% 0.15/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 4776 pages
% 0.15/5.57
% 0.15/5.57 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.15/5.57 % User time : 0.037 s
% 0.15/5.57 % System time : 0.011 s
% 0.15/5.57 % Total time : 0.048 s
% 0.15/5.57 % Maximum resident set size: 5376 pages
% 0.15/5.57 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------